I am lost as to why you are asking me about the thread and what it is for and what I expect from it. I don't expect ANYTHING from it, I didn't start the thing, why not ask the person who started the thread/ So why then did you ask ME, what was the point of this thread because ... trying to decide what somebody else’s motives for their actions is pointless. It seems totally ridiculous to me to ask 1: What is the purpose of the thread. I have no idea, I did NOT start it. 2: How do I think this will end??? FIIK. 3: Do I think somebody will come in and educate a decision of who is right and wrong??? FIIK. 4: And what is the measure for success??? There isn't one. Couldn't agree more.
You decided to respond to my comment am I not allowed to respond to a comment directed at ME??? Also you do seem one protagonist who is involved in the thread... Not sure why you would comment, then complain... I did not ask you anything, until you decided to respond to my comment directed to another. So I simply point out this thread is pointless and any ulterior motives that could be perceived are as relevant as the main premise. As you are a protagonist in the thread then I ask you couple questions of your involvement in thread simply to ascertain your motives since we seem to agree that the thread is pointless. Since you agree there is no measure for success, your comments in the thread are considerable more intriguing than the thread itself…
I suspect the complaint and desperate grasp for sympathy comes from the unexpected outcome. Historical proof that Pemulwuy (an Aboriginal) was a terrorist that attacked civilian targets.
There is absolutely no doubt that pemulwuy was a resistance fighter and far from the absurd claim of terrorist lol. Clearly not all colonisers were lunatics without a skerrick of human kindness but there certainly were some that stirred up bitterness towards the natives. The first people of this nation were forgotten in the historical perspective up until 30 years ago, I look forward to hearing more factual perspectives from this ancient race of people who kept this land in pristine condition. The traditional owners of this land hold a very special place in our history. A group of people who have collectively endured hardship and surprisingly survived. I'm not sure I'm supposed to be afraid of by saying that possibly my relatives terrorised the aborigines. One thing is for sure, I will stand firm to ensure that I don't contribute to the negative slurring like a mindless child in an endeavour to belittle others less fortunate. There are certainly some on this forum who just don't have the intellect to connect dots.
Have you taken upon yourself to change the definitions of the term "terrorist"? I think you need to inform all the dictionaries and relevant groups that there is a NEW definition for the term "terrorist" as per your unique standards. The last time I looked; the definition of a terrorist included an individual or group who attacked civilian targets. Under your new definition of the term "terrorist" the people who attacked the twin towers in the USA (civilian target) are not terrorists - or the Bali bombing? They are now called resistance fighters I think you should try and convince all the people who lost loved ones in those attacks about your new definition on of the term "terrorist" and see what they think.
